From an outsider, Javid/Hammond looks likely to be the most successful. Hammond because he looks safe but boring, and Javid because he annoys all the Corbynites by not being left-wing, as he should be. That may exacerbate their intemperate language - which can have a racist tone.
There is no version of Brexit that meets the 5 tests set out.
Cancelling Brexit meets 4 of them
– Gain the acceptance of enough of the other 27 EU member states to pass the QMV threshold. – Gain the support of the House of Commons. – Gain the support of the European Parliament. – Not provoke a leadership challenge within her party, either directly from her MPs or as a consequence of cabinet / government resignations. – Retain the support of the DUP.
but it would need public approval.
The Tories are screwed as a party of Government whatever happens.
A Fuck business Brexit, complete with ration cards doesn't secure their future any better than rerunning the vote.
Voting again is the worst option, apart from ALL the rest.
Furthermore, it's the only way Theresa May can take back control of the politics. She's proven herself to be a gambler and she loves to use big set piece statements to change the narrative. Everything in her character and in the logic of the situation suggests this is what she will do.
Hammond - would actually have been my pick last time. However, he didn't stand and there is no sign he wants the job. I think he's very happy where he is and wants to stay there. A good case could be made that he's the best Chancellor we've had since Howe, and May's foolish treatment of him is one of many signs that her judgement is flawed. Could easily be the kingmaker though.
Javid - has panache and flair, and clearly wants it. Whether he has the ability to make tough decisions and make them stick is a different question. He and Hammond however as a duumvirate might be a very formidable team. Both are incidentally former hardline Euroscpetics turned Remainers.
Hunt - has the talent, the energy, and the ability to make tough calls. Can see him struggling in a campaign against Corbyn though.
Gove - realistically if one of the Leave camp stands it will be him, but I don't think he will. He knows how unpopular he is and there's no way he would improve on fourth last time.
Fox - may be tempted, but wouldn't win.
If it is Javid, backed by Hammond, I think there is a chance, although not a certainty, that the Conservatives could call and win an election against Corbyn. They have brains, experience, knowledge and indeed backgrounds that he simply can't match. It would be the posh thickos of Islington against the working class whiz kids. Moreover, Corbyn has admitted his policies are unworkable but has come up with no new ones. He would be vulnerable.
But whether the membership would vote for it, I don't know. I think however with Hunt and Javid as the final two, they would go for Javid.
Hammond and Javid were Eurosceptic but still wanted Remain, it was only when euroscepticism boiled over to Brexitism that they came firmly for Remain.
I think that you overestimate the importance of intelligence to the electorate, as many intelligent people do. In reality communication skills and emotional intelligence count for more, and low cunning for even more still.
A Leaver will be in the final two and will win. Not BoJo or JRM, so Gove it is.
Mr. D, aye. The claim that we'd find it easier to leave a decade down the line was not one that persuaded me.
Mr. CD13, remains to be seen what tactic they'll adopt. There's a departure in name only, revocation of Article 50 via the Commons, or a second referendum.
I'm guilty of trying to argue that there'd always be another chance to disengage. I was clearly wrong.. if it's hard now, it's going to be even worse after another decade or two of "ever closer union".
That is why I think there will be a roll of the dice in the New Year, and May will go. She might be forced out anyway for health reasons (she looks really ill) but if not I think Hammond and Hunt will have a quiet word.
Apparently insulin is one the drugs we have to import. No UK manufacture.
Thanks, Nigel. I care, but the article only goes part way to explaining the matter.
It's easy to believe the problem lies in Yorkshire, but there is still no explanation as to why the England selectors preferred first Dawson, then Crane. There are no cricketing grounds for that preference.
We still can only guess what the real reasons were.
In an ideal world, Gillespie would be in charge of the England team...
I'm guilty of trying to argue that there'd always be another chance to disengage. I was clearly wrong.. if it's hard now, it's going to be even worse after another decade or two of "ever closer union".
Actually, failure to disengage now is actually an argument in favour of doing it in the future.
The reason it is failing now is the Unicorns promised by the Brexiteers.
An honest agenda of decades of uncoupling (with the associated economic hits) is entirely technically achievable.
Hammond - would actually have been my pick last time. However, he didn't stand and there is no sign he wants the job. I think he's very happy where he is and wants to stay there. A good case could be made that he's the best Chancellor we've had since Howe, and May's foolish treatment of him is one of many signs that her judgement is flawed. Could easily be the kingmaker though.
Javid - has panache and flair, and clearly wants it. Whether he has the ability to make tough decisions and make them stick is a different question. He and Hammond however as a duumvirate might be a very formidable team. Both are incidentally former hardline Euroscpetics turned Remainers.
Hunt - has the talent, the energy, and the ability to make tough calls. Can see him struggling in a campaign against Corbyn though.
Gove - realistically if one of the Leave camp stands it will be him, but I don't think he will. He knows how unpopular he is and there's no way he would improve on fourth last time.
Fox - may be tempted, but wouldn't win.
If it is Javid, backed by Hammond, I think there is a chance, although not a certainty, that the Conservatives could call and win an election against Corbyn. They have brains, experience, knowledge and indeed backgrounds that he simply can't match. It would be the posh thickos of Islington against the working class whiz kids. Moreover, Corbyn has admitted his policies are unworkable but has come up with no new ones. He would be vulnerable.
But whether the membership would vote for it, I don't know. I think however with Hunt and Javid as the final two, they would go for Javid.
Surely the MPs will ensure a leaver is in the final two?
(1) There is no Leaver senior enough to be a realistic contender
(2) Once we're out, as I've said, Leave/Remain is not the issue. It will be stay out/rejoin and I don't think any current Cabinet Minister, including Hammond, would advocated the latter in the next ten years.
I think your 2) is wrong. If there's a deal it's clear plenty will be very unhappy and that the process was led by a Remainer has been given as an excuse already, even stating they don't understand the leave mindset. I think it highly likely someone like Boris will make the same argument, that even though we are out now, we need someone who truly believes in the idea to take us forward.
I'm guilty of trying to argue that there'd always be another chance to disengage. I was clearly wrong.. if it's hard now, it's going to be even worse after another decade or two of "ever closer union".
Actually, failure to disengage now is actually an argument in favour of doing it in the future.
The reason it is failing now is the Unicorns promised by the Brexiteers.
An honest agenda of decades of uncoupling (with the associated economic hits) is entirely technically achievable.
Which is why I'm content with softer variants of Brexit. Just because the process stars now, doesn't mean it also has to end now.
Hammond - would actually have been my pick last time. However, he didn't stand and there is no sign he wants the job. I think he's very happy where he is and wants to stay there. A good case could be made that he's the best Chancellor we've had since Howe, and May's foolish treatment of him is one of many signs that her judgement is flawed. Could easily be the kingmaker though.
Javid - has panache and flair, and clearly wants it. Whether he has the ability to make tough decisions and make them stick is a different question. He and Hammond however as a duumvirate might be a very formidable team. Both are incidentally former hardline Euroscpetics turned Remainers.
Hunt - has the talent, the energy, and the ability to make tough calls. Can see him struggling in a campaign against Corbyn though.
Gove - realistically if one of the Leave camp stands it will be him, but I don't think he will. He knows how unpopular he is and there's no way he would improve on fourth last time.
Fox - may be tempted, but wouldn't win.
If it is Javid, backed by Hammond, I think there is a chance, although not a certainty, that the Conservatives could call and win an election against Corbyn. They have brains, experience, knowledge and indeed backgrounds that he simply can't match. It would be the posh thickos of Islington against the working class whiz kids. Moreover, Corbyn has admitted his policies are unworkable but has come up with no new ones. He would be vulnerable.
But whether the membership would vote for it, I don't know. I think however with Hunt and Javid as the final two, they would go for Javid.
Hammond and Javid were Eurosceptic but still wanted Remain, it was only when euroscepticism boiled over to Brexitism that they came firmly for Remain.
I think that you overestimate the importance of intelligence to the electorate, as many intelligent people do. In reality communication skills and emotional intelligence count for more, and low cunning for even more still.
A Leaver will be in the final two and will win. Not BoJo or JRM, so Gove it is.
Gove... emotional intelligence.... I’m missing something here. And after dinner speaking proficiency doesn’t really count as communication skills, either.
I'm guilty of trying to argue that there'd always be another chance to disengage. I was clearly wrong.. if it's hard now, it's going to be even worse after another decade or two of "ever closer union".
Actually, failure to disengage now is actually an argument in favour of doing it in the future.
The reason it is failing now is the Unicorns promised by the Brexiteers.
An honest agenda of decades of uncoupling (with the associated economic hits) is entirely technically achievable.
Which is why I'm content with softer variants of Brexit. Just because the process stars now, doesn't mean it also has to end now.
Agreed. There are many directions we can head once out the door, we don't need to jump through, cracking our head on the doorframe on the way out. Once out the parties will naturally shift into arguments on direction, with lds as the rejoined, so even the splits in the big 2 might resolve to some degree.
A binary hard/remain referendum is now what's left. That's the choice. A deal, appears to be quite limited now. Faced with the stark realities and none of the flim flam are we in or are we in out?
A binary hard/remain referendum is now what's left. That's the choice. A deal, appears to be quite limited now. Faced with the stark realities and none of the flim flam are we in or are we in out?
Quite possibly. Yes, getting that referendum is very tricky. But if no deal is on hand, and fudge will no longer cut it so it isn't, plenty woukd prefer the people carry the can on making that choice for sure.
Mr. Jonathan, which then puts the lie to the notion we can ever leave. What's the point of democracy if our laws can be determined by foreigners over whom we have no power to elect, remove, or otherwise hold accountable?
A combination of prevarication and capitulation by May, coupled with EU intransigence, has taken us to a more unpleasant political crossroads than was necessary.
No deal and WTO is the default position under article 50, nothing has to be done for it take place, it just happens unless an alternative is agreed.
I can't see anything meeting the desires of the EU27 ever making it past this parliament, so barring a new parliament which the FTPA makes very hard, we're left with no deal.
The sooner serious preparation for it occurs the better.
The British government has been unable to successfully conclude negotiations with itself let alone the EU. Why is everyone assuming they'll be able to get the WTO deal done?
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told Reuters in Geneva on Monday that the agriculture question was still unresolved.
“There is no progress on agreeing the terms of Brexit (at the WTO),” she said.
That sounds alarmingly similar in tone to Barnier as he has oh so reasonably filleted the government’s efforts to negotiate any concessions for Britain.
So here's the thing, from the Leavers' perspective, No Deal is happening because the EU are being deliberately obstructive to punish them for leaving, and/or coerce them into taking a bad deal. The Leavers' solution is No-Deal + WTO.
But if that's the EU's game, why wouldn't they also be deliberately obstructive about the WTO?
Mr. Jonathan, which then puts the lie to the notion we can ever leave. What's the point of democracy if our laws can be determined by foreigners over whom we have no power to elect, remove, or otherwise hold accountable?
A combination of prevarication and capitulation by May, coupled with EU intransigence, has taken us to a more unpleasant political crossroads than was necessary.
I don't see that, we could easily still vote to go. Staying is hardly a bed of roses and the EU had hardly endeared itself. But unlike 2016 it would be an informed choice. We have a lot more information now. We know what leave looks like.
Hammond - would actually have been my pick last time. However, he didn't stand and there is no sign he wants the job. I think he's very happy where he is and wants to stay there. A good case could be made that he's the best Chancellor we've had since Howe, and May's foolish treatment of him is one of many signs that her judgement is flawed. Could easily be the kingmaker though.
Javid - has panache and flair, and clearly wants it. Whether he has the ability to make tough decisions and make them stick is a different question. He and Hammond however as a duumvirate might be a very formidable team. Both are incidentally former hardline Euroscpetics turned Remainers.
Hunt - has the talent, the energy, and the ability to make tough calls. Can see him struggling in a campaign against Corbyn though.
Gove - realistically if one of the Leave camp stands it will be him, but I don't think he will. He knows how unpopular he is and there's no way he would improve on fourth last time.
Fox - may be tempted, but wouldn't win.
If it is Javid, backed by Hammond, I think there is a chance, although not a certainty, that the Conservatives could call and win an election against Corbyn. They have brains, experience, knowledge and indeed backgrounds that he simply can't match. It would be the posh thickos of Islington against the working class whiz kids. Moreover, Corbyn has admitted his policies are unworkable but has come up with no new ones. He would be vulnerable.
But whether the membership would vote for it, I don't know. I think however with Hunt and Javid as the final two, they would go for Javid.
Hammond and Javid were Eurosceptic but still wanted Remain, it was only when euroscepticism boiled over to Brexitism that they came firmly for Remain.
I think that you overestimate the importance of intelligence to the electorate, as many intelligent people do. In reality communication skills and emotional intelligence count for more, and low cunning for even more still.
A Leaver will be in the final two and will win. Not BoJo or JRM, so Gove it is.
Gove... emotional intelligence.... I’m missing something here. And after dinner speaking proficiency doesn’t really count as communication skills, either.
I agree, but there is a world of difference in becoming party leader, and in winning over voters. Gove could easily do the first, but the latter be out of his reach.
Jezza has great campaigning skills and is a natural when it comes to meeting the public, it is internal party management such as failing to put the anti-semitism issue to bed, thst he falls down on.
No deal and WTO is the default position under article 50, nothing has to be done for it take place, it just happens unless an alternative is agreed.
I can't see anything meeting the desires of the EU27 ever making it past this parliament, so barring a new parliament which the FTPA makes very hard, we're left with no deal.
The sooner serious preparation for it occurs the better.
The British government has been unable to successfully conclude negotiations with itself let alone the EU. Why is everyone assuming they'll be able to get the WTO deal done?
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told Reuters in Geneva on Monday that the agriculture question was still unresolved.
“There is no progress on agreeing the terms of Brexit (at the WTO),” she said.
That sounds alarmingly similar in tone to Barnier as he has oh so reasonably filleted the government’s efforts to negotiate any concessions for Britain.
So here's the thing, from the Leavers' perspective, No Deal is happening because the EU are being deliberately obstructive to punish them for leaving, and/or coerce them into taking a bad deal. The Leavers' solution is No-Deal + WTO.
But if that's the EU's game, why wouldn't they also be deliberately obstructive about the WTO?
If they are being deliberately obstructive to punish is, doesn't it make sense they'd do it at the WTO as well?
Interesting that the LibDems are up to 10 in both the YouGov and Ipsos-Mori polls. It’s not just UKIP doing well on the back of the chaos. And the LibDems will be organised and ready to fight at the next GE, unlike UKIP.
Mr. Jonathan, I do agree a second referendum is plausible, but I'm wondering how the mechanics and timings could work. Grieve's 'meaningful vote' seems one option for a mechanism, but unsure if the time would be sufficient.
May would need to ask for a suspension of the Article 50 Clock, but (assuming that's forthcoming) there's a reasonable chance she'll be defenestrated if she tries it.
No deal and WTO is the default position under article 50, nothing has to be done for it take place, it just happens unless an alternative is agreed.
I can't see anything meeting the desires of the EU27 ever making it past this parliament, so barring a new parliament which the FTPA makes very hard, we're left with no deal.
The sooner serious preparation for it occurs the better.
The British government has been unable to successfully conclude negotiations with itself let alone the EU. Why is everyone assuming they'll be able to get the WTO deal done?
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told Reuters in Geneva on Monday that the agriculture question was still unresolved.
“There is no progress on agreeing the terms of Brexit (at the WTO),” she said.
That sounds alarmingly similar in tone to Barnier as he has oh so reasonably filleted the government’s efforts to negotiate any concessions for Britain.
So here's the thing, from the Leavers' perspective, No Deal is happening because the EU are being deliberately obstructive to punish them for leaving, and/or coerce them into taking a bad deal. The Leavers' solution is No-Deal + WTO.
But if that's the EU's game, why wouldn't they also be deliberately obstructive about the WTO?
Because Leavers need someone to blame. That is so much easier than either putting in the work to Brexit safely or admitting that it is not possible without dire consequences.
Brexit is like buying a house. We put an offer down in 2016. We subsequently did a survey that found a few problems. We still like the house and are being pressured to exchange, but have that niggling feeling that the house was not as advertised and may have a big bill in the future.
There is no version of Brexit that meets the 5 tests set out.
Cancelling Brexit meets 4 of them
– Gain the acceptance of enough of the other 27 EU member states to pass the QMV threshold. – Gain the support of the House of Commons. – Gain the support of the European Parliament. – Not provoke a leadership challenge within her party, either directly from her MPs or as a consequence of cabinet / government resignations. – Retain the support of the DUP.
but it would need public approval.
The Tories are screwed as a party of Government whatever happens.
A Fuck business Brexit, complete with ration cards doesn't secure their future any better than rerunning the vote.
Voting again is the worst option, apart from ALL the rest.
Furthermore, it's the only way Theresa May can take back control of the politics. She's proven herself to be a gambler and she loves to use big set piece statements to change the narrative. Everything in her character and in the logic of the situation suggests this is what she will do.
I think you're describing a different Theresa May to the one who is currently PM.
Brexit is like buying a house. We put an offer down in 2016. We subsequently did a survey that found a few problems. We still like the house and are being pressured to exchange, but have that niggling feeling that the house was not as advertised and may have a big bill in the future.
Nothing of the sort, that implies we can look for another house at our leisure. It's either this, or we're stuck in our present house forever.
I think your 2) is wrong. If there's a deal it's clear plenty will be very unhappy and that the process was led by a Remainer has been given as an excuse already, even stating they don't understand the leave mindset. I think it highly likely someone like Boris will make the same argument, that even though we are out now, we need someone who truly believes in the idea to take us forward.
The tories are obviously going to position themselves as the true guardians of Brexit in the way that the NHS is a sacred totem for Labour.
I'm guilty of trying to argue that there'd always be another chance to disengage. I was clearly wrong.. if it's hard now, it's going to be even worse after another decade or two of "ever closer union".
Actually, failure to disengage now is actually an argument in favour of doing it in the future.
The reason it is failing now is the Unicorns promised by the Brexiteers.
An honest agenda of decades of uncoupling (with the associated economic hits) is entirely technically achievable.
Uncoupling is a mirage. This is an increasingly globalised world, with people, money and ideas highly mobile. We may well leave the EU, but the mesh of FTAs and international agreements will constrain sovereignty just as much.
There is no version of Brexit that meets the 5 tests set out.
Cancelling Brexit meets 4 of them
– Gain the acceptance of enough of the other 27 EU member states to pass the QMV threshold. – Gain the support of the House of Commons. – Gain the support of the European Parliament. – Not provoke a leadership challenge within her party, either directly from her MPs or as a consequence of cabinet / government resignations. – Retain the support of the DUP.
but it would need public approval.
The Tories are screwed as a party of Government whatever happens.
A Fuck business Brexit, complete with ration cards doesn't secure their future any better than rerunning the vote.
Voting again is the worst option, apart from ALL the rest.
Furthermore, it's the only way Theresa May can take back control of the politics. She's proven herself to be a gambler and she loves to use big set piece statements to change the narrative. Everything in her character and in the logic of the situation suggests this is what she will do.
I think you're describing a different Theresa May to the one who is currently PM.
He also thinks she had a plan in motion from before article 50 was invoked, intending to end up calling a second referendum.
Apparently she is actually the greatest politician of our age.
No deal and WTO is the default position under article 50, nothing has to be done for it take place, it just happens unless an alternative is agreed.
I can't see anything meeting the desires of the EU27 ever making it past this parliament, so barring a new parliament which the FTPA makes very hard, we're left with no deal.
The sooner serious preparation for it occurs the better.
The British government has been unable to successfully conclude negotiations with itself let alone the EU. Why is everyone assuming they'll be able to get the WTO deal done?
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told Reuters in Geneva on Monday that the agriculture question was still unresolved.
“There is no progress on agreeing the terms of Brexit (at the WTO),” she said.
That sounds alarmingly similar in tone to Barnier as he has oh so reasonably filleted the government’s efforts to negotiate any concessions for Britain.
So here's the thing, from the Leavers' perspective, No Deal is happening because the EU are being deliberately obstructive to punish them for leaving, and/or coerce them into taking a bad deal. The Leavers' solution is No-Deal + WTO.
But if that's the EU's game, why wouldn't they also be deliberately obstructive about the WTO?
If they are being deliberately obstructive to punish is, doesn't it make sense they'd do it at the WTO as well?
Yes, that's my point. So given that the EU seem to have at least some ability to bollocks up Britain's WTO transition, the proposed solution of No-Deal+WTO seems problematic.
Thanks, Nigel. I care, but the article only goes part way to explaining the matter.
It's easy to believe the problem lies in Yorkshire, but there is still no explanation as to why the England selectors preferred first Dawson, then Crane. There are no cricketing grounds for that preference.
We still can only guess what the real reasons were.
In an ideal world, Gillespie would be in charge of the England team...
Mr. Jonathan, I do agree a second referendum is plausible, but I'm wondering how the mechanics and timings could work. Grieve's 'meaningful vote' seems one option for a mechanism, but unsure if the time would be sufficient.
May would need to ask for a suspension of the Article 50 Clock, but (assuming that's forthcoming) there's a reasonable chance she'll be defenestrated if she tries it.
October no deal is agreed, but EU offers remain option. May goes to commons offering choice hard, remain or referendum as a backstop. A sequence of votes in Commons. Hard fails. Remain fails.
I think your 2) is wrong. If there's a deal it's clear plenty will be very unhappy and that the process was led by a Remainer has been given as an excuse already, even stating they don't understand the leave mindset. I think it highly likely someone like Boris will make the same argument, that even though we are out now, we need someone who truly believes in the idea to take us forward.
The tories are obviously going to position themselves as the true guardians of Brexit in the way that the NHS is a sacred totem for Labour.
Which will be hard if ukip rise again and take some of that vote, another reason a true be leaver will make it to final 2 and probably win.
Hammond - would actually have been my pick last time. However, he didn't stand and there is no sign he wants the job. I think he's very happy where he is and wants to stay there. A good case could be made that he's the best Chancellor we've had since Howe, and May's foolish treatment of him is one of many signs that her judgement is flawed. Could easily be the kingmaker though.
Javid - has panache and flair, and clearly wants it. Whether he has the ability to make tough decisions and make them stick is a different question. He and Hammond however as a duumvirate might be a very formidable team. Both are incidentally former hardline Euroscpetics turned Remainers.
Hunt - has the talent, the energy, and the ability to make tough calls. Can see him struggling in a campaign against Corbyn though.
Gove - realistically if one of the Leave camp stands it will be him, but I don't think he will. He knows how unpopular he is and there's no way he would improve on fourth last time.
Fox - may be tempted, but wouldn't win.
If it is Javid, backed by Hammond, I think there is a chance, although not a certainty, that the Conservatives could call and win an election against Corbyn. They have brains, experience, knowledge and indeed backgrounds that he simply can't match. It would be the posh thickos of Islington against the working class whiz kids. Moreover, Corbyn has admitted his policies are unworkable but has come up with no new ones. He would be vulnerable.
But whether the membership would vote for it, I don't know. I think however with Hunt and Javid as the final two, they would go for Javid.
Hammond and Javid were Eurosceptic but still wanted Remain, it was only when euroscepticism boiled over to Brexitism that they came firmly for Remain.
I think that you overestimate the importance of intelligence to the electorate, as many intelligent people do. In reality communication skills and emotional intelligence count for more, and low cunning for even more still.
A Leaver will be in the final two and will win. Not BoJo or JRM, so Gove it is.
Gove... emotional intelligence.... I’m missing something here. And after dinner speaking proficiency doesn’t really count as communication skills, either.
I agree, but there is a world of difference in becoming party leader, and in winning over voters. Gove could easily do the first, but the latter be out of his reach.
Jezza has great campaigning skills and is a natural when it comes to meeting the public, it is internal party management such as failing to put the anti-semitism issue to bed, thst he falls down on.
Corbyn hangs out with anti-Semites. Gove hangs out with ethno-nationalist white supremacists. They’re two sides of the same coin.
There is no version of Brexit that meets the 5 tests set out.
Cancelling Brexit meets 4 of them
– Gain the acceptance of enough of the other 27 EU member states to pass the QMV threshold. – Gain the support of the House of Commons. – Gain the support of the European Parliament. – Not provoke a leadership challenge within her party, either directly from her MPs or as a consequence of cabinet / government resignations. – Retain the support of the DUP.
but it would need public approval.
The Tories are screwed as a party of Government whatever happens.
A Fuck business Brexit, complete with ration cards doesn't secure their future any better than rerunning the vote.
Voting again is the worst option, apart from ALL the rest.
Furthermore, it's the only way Theresa May can take back control of the politics. She's proven herself to be a gambler and she loves to use big set piece statements to change the narrative. Everything in her character and in the logic of the situation suggests this is what she will do.
I think you're describing a different Theresa May to the one who is currently PM.
He also thinks she had a plan in motion from before article 50 was invoked, intending to end up calling a second referendum.
Apparently she is actually the greatest politician of our age.
Presumably, she also intended to fail to win an overall majority, as part of that plan.
There is no version of Brexit that meets the 5 tests set out.
Cancelling Brexit meets 4 of them
– Gain the acceptance of enough of the other 27 EU member states to pass the QMV threshold. – Gain the support of the House of Commons. – Gain the support of the European Parliament. – Not provoke a leadership challenge within her party, either directly from her MPs or as a consequence of cabinet / government resignations. – Retain the support of the DUP.
but it would need public approval.
The Tories are screwed as a party of Government whatever happens.
A Fuck business Brexit, complete with ration cards doesn't secure their future any better than rerunning the vote.
Voting again is the worst option, apart from ALL the rest.
Furthermore, it's the only way Theresa May can take back control of the politics. She's proven herself to be a gambler and she loves to use big set piece statements to change the narrative. Everything in her character and in the logic of the situation suggests this is what she will do.
I think you're describing a different Theresa May to the one who is currently PM.
He also thinks she had a plan in motion from before article 50 was invoked, intending to end up calling a second referendum.
Apparently she is actually the greatest politician of our age.
Given the political pygmies we have, dhe may well be our greatest politician.
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
Brexit is like buying a house. We put an offer down in 2016. We subsequently did a survey that found a few problems. We still like the house and are being pressured to exchange, but have that niggling feeling that the house was not as advertised and may have a big bill in the future.
Nothing of the sort, that implies we can look for another house at our leisure. It's either this, or we're stuck in our present house forever.
We don't like the current house. It's the neighbours and the lack of parking. But at least the roof doesn't leak and there is no subsidence.
The underlying problem is that we used to live in a grand mansion years ago, but have not got used to our reduced means.
Mr. Jonathan, I do agree a second referendum is plausible, but I'm wondering how the mechanics and timings could work. Grieve's 'meaningful vote' seems one option for a mechanism, but unsure if the time would be sufficient.
May would need to ask for a suspension of the Article 50 Clock, but (assuming that's forthcoming) there's a reasonable chance she'll be defenestrated if she tries it.
I wonder if she really would. If Tory MPs are staring straight at Clusterfuck Brexit + Party Chaos + Fiddling While Rome Burns, with strong potential to end up in a new election where they'd have to defend their jobs under these less-than-propitious circumstances, would 50%+1 really pull the trigger? I mean, the membership would be hopping mad, but the confidence vote is a secret ballot, they don't have to tell anyone they voted for her.
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
Or if they do care, they care about Brexit more? Which in fairness is reasonably principled.
No deal and WTO is the default position under article 50, nothing has to be done for it take place, it just happens unless an alternative is agreed.
I can't see anything meeting the desires of the EU27 ever making it past this parliament, so barring a new parliament which the FTPA makes very hard, we're left with no deal.
The sooner serious preparation for it occurs the better.
The British government has been unable to successfully conclude negotiations with itself let alone the EU. Why is everyone assuming they'll be able to get the WTO deal done?
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told Reuters in Geneva on Monday that the agriculture question was still unresolved.
“There is no progress on agreeing the terms of Brexit (at the WTO),” she said.
That sounds alarmingly similar in tone to Barnier as he has oh so reasonably filleted the government’s efforts to negotiate any concessions for Britain.
So here's the thing, from the Leavers' perspective, No Deal is happening because the EU are being deliberately obstructive to punish them for leaving, and/or coerce them into taking a bad deal. The Leavers' solution is No-Deal + WTO.
But if that's the EU's game, why wouldn't they also be deliberately obstructive about the WTO?
If they are being deliberately obstructive to punish is, doesn't it make sense they'd do it at the WTO as well?
Yes, that's my point. So given that the EU seem to have at least some ability to bollocks up Britain's WTO transition, the proposed solution of No-Deal+WTO seems problematic.
There are plenty of WTO members not happy over how TRQs are divvied up. Even the WTO is not smooth sailing for HMS Brexit. An inteesting discussion here on the subject:
Brexit is like buying a house. We put an offer down in 2016. We subsequently did a survey that found a few problems. We still like the house and are being pressured to exchange, but have that niggling feeling that the house was not as advertised and may have a big bill in the future.
Nothing of the sort, that implies we can look for another house at our leisure. It's either this, or we're stuck in our present house forever.
We've decided we want to buy a place with a freehold. We've tried renting but become disillusioned because the current landlord keeps adding ever more restrictive covenants on how we can live in our property.
"But everybody is renting now, dontcha know? And think of the removals cost....the upheaval....for what?"
Brexit is like buying a house. We put an offer down in 2016. We subsequently did a survey that found a few problems. We still like the house and are being pressured to exchange, but have that niggling feeling that the house was not as advertised and may have a big bill in the future.
Nothing of the sort, that implies we can look for another house at our leisure. It's either this, or we're stuck in our present house forever.
We don't like the current house. It's the neighbours and the lack of parking. But at least the roof doesn't leak and there is no subsidence.
The underlying problem is that we used to live in a grand mansion years ago, but have not got used to our reduced means.
Nope. Most people don't even remember the grand mansion as it was before their time. They just think, correctly or not, that they are being restricted from fixing up the house in the way they'd want. Unreasonable planning conditions.
There is no version of Brexit that meets the 5 tests set out.
Cancelling Brexit meets 4 of them
– Gain the acceptance of enough of the other 27 EU member states to pass the QMV threshold. – Gain the support of the House of Commons. – Gain the support of the European Parliament. – Not provoke a leadership challenge within her party, either directly from her MPs or as a consequence of cabinet / government resignations. – Retain the support of the DUP.
but it would need public approval.
The Tories are screwed as a party of Government whatever happens.
A Fuck business Brexit, complete with ration cards doesn't secure their future any better than rerunning the vote.
Voting again is the worst option, apart from ALL the rest.
Furthermore, it's the only way Theresa May can take back control of the politics. She's proven herself to be a gambler and she loves to use big set piece statements to change the narrative. Everything in her character and in the logic of the situation suggests this is what she will do.
I think you're describing a different Theresa May to the one who is currently PM.
He also thinks she had a plan in motion from before article 50 was invoked, intending to end up calling a second referendum.
Apparently she is actually the greatest politician of our age.
Given the political pygmies we have, dhe may well be our greatest politician.
We don't. All that has happened is that we've had the same opinions amplified, a reboot of Project Fear, and plenty of heat. We've learned that the EU moves slowly, if at all, and remains intransigent. No concession has been offered by the EU because it can't do if it wants to keep the project on track. However a sort of BINO might be available.
I'd say that was already pretty well known if we chose to look.
We, and the EU, continue to approach a crisis point. We either pretend to leave and continue on the road to one state in Europe. Or we leave, despite the temporary difficulties that may cause.
There's no certainty that the EU will remain on course because other countries are flexing their muscles. It may be many years before full statehood is achieved and it will remain vulnerable during that time. The current system of half-integration is unstable. That's why the EU's final destination is logical.
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
I think that a lot of people are using the Conservative Party and the Labour Party as flags of convenience.
I think that very few people are strongly attached to either party now, despite their big combined vote share.
Mr. Jonathan, I do agree a second referendum is plausible, but I'm wondering how the mechanics and timings could work. Grieve's 'meaningful vote' seems one option for a mechanism, but unsure if the time would be sufficient.
May would need to ask for a suspension of the Article 50 Clock, but (assuming that's forthcoming) there's a reasonable chance she'll be defenestrated if she tries it.
I wonder if she really would. If Tory MPs are staring straight at Clusterfuck Brexit + Party Chaos + Fiddling While Rome Burns, with strong potential to end up in a new election where they'd have to defend their jobs under these less-than-propitious circumstances, would 50%+1 really pull the trigger? I mean, the membership would be hopping mad, but the confidence vote is a secret ballot, they don't have to tell anyone they voted for her.
They would.
Theresa May is currently a Grace and Favour PM, at the grace and favour of the Tory Party. She lost them the majority, has made very heavy weather of Brexit (where she and her acolytes have meddled constantly) and has very, very few friends. They will not, under any crcumstances, countenance her leading them into the next General Election. She is working her notice. The only issue is her departure date.
Brexit is like buying a house. We put an offer down in 2016. We subsequently did a survey that found a few problems. We still like the house and are being pressured to exchange, but have that niggling feeling that the house was not as advertised and may have a big bill in the future.
Nothing of the sort, that implies we can look for another house at our leisure. It's either this, or we're stuck in our present house forever.
We don't like the current house. It's the neighbours and the lack of parking. But at least the roof doesn't leak and there is no subsidence.
The underlying problem is that we used to live in a grand mansion years ago, but have not got used to our reduced means.
Nope. Most people don't even remember the grand mansion as it was before their time. They just think, correctly or not, that they are being restricted from fixing up the house in the way they'd want. Unreasonable planning conditions.
There's a big portrait above the mantle piece reminding is every day of what we once were.
Meanwhile we're jealous of the new Audi in number 40 and curtain twitching saw the poodle our in number 2 do it's business on our lawn. Don't mention the new flats at the end of the road. Rumour has it they'll be a through route into the neighbouring estate. Not what we expected when we moved into the close in the 1970s.
There is no version of Brexit that meets the 5 tests set out.
Cancelling Brexit meets 4 of them
– Gain the acceptance of enough of the other 27 EU member states to pass the QMV threshold. – Gain the support of the House of Commons. – Gain the support of the European Parliament. – Not provoke a leadership challenge within her party, either directly from her MPs or as a consequence of cabinet / government resignations. – Retain the support of the DUP.
but it would need public approval.
The Tories are screwed as a party of Government whatever happens.
A Fuck business Brexit, complete with ration cards doesn't secure their future any better than rerunning the vote.
Voting again is the worst option, apart from ALL the rest.
Furthermore, it's the only way Theresa May can take back control of the politics. She's proven herself to be a gambler and she loves to use big set piece statements to change the narrative. Everything in her character and in the logic of the situation suggests this is what she will do.
I think you're describing a different Theresa May to the one who is currently PM.
He also thinks she had a plan in motion from before article 50 was invoked, intending to end up calling a second referendum.
Apparently she is actually the greatest politician of our age.
Presumably, she also intended to fail to win an overall majority, as part of that plan.
Does her strategic and executional genius know no bounds?
Who suspected she planned to throw away a double digit lead, all as part of a cunning plan to keep us in the EU?
Brexit is like buying a house. We put an offer down in 2016. We subsequently did a survey that found a few problems. We still like the house and are being pressured to exchange, but have that niggling feeling that the house was not as advertised and may have a big bill in the future.
Nothing of the sort, that implies we can look for another house at our leisure. It's either this, or we're stuck in our present house forever.
We don't like the current house. It's the neighbours and the lack of parking. But at least the roof doesn't leak and there is no subsidence.
The underlying problem is that we used to live in a grand mansion years ago, but have not got used to our reduced means.
Nope. Most people don't even remember the grand mansion as it was before their time. They just think, correctly or not, that they are being restricted from fixing up the house in the way they'd want. Unreasonable planning conditions.
There's a big portrait above the mantle piece reminding is every day of what we once were.
Which doesn't mean any significant number are dreaming of that exact portrait. It's a common assertion, much overblown.
I have read a few of the posts below. No one can solve David Herdson's rubik cube. In fact, it is unsolvable.
Except one which most of you may find strange. At the last minute, to achieve their glorious independence, the Right may let NI drift off. The argument will be taht in twenty years it will be a goner anyway.
I am not suggesting that NI will be out of the UK but NI will be in the customs union. Lots of justifications will come forward:
NI voted to Remain, therefore , voted for CU. Britain [ GB ] will be free ! [ There will be new trouble with Scotland but England and Wales did vote for Brexit ]
The DUP may not like it. But any legislation can be amended in no time.
I cannot see any other way out unless there is a second vote and Remain is voted back.
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
I think that a lot of people are using the Conservative Party and the Labour Party as flags of convenience.
I think that very few people are strongly attached to either party now, despite their big combined vote share.
I don't think of leavers as Conservatives.
There's clearly a very different strand of opinion that UKIP was much better at embodying back in the days when it had enough members to run a proper conference and was starting to get an organisation together.
Mr. Jonathan, I do agree a second referendum is plausible, but I'm wondering how the mechanics and timings could work. Grieve's 'meaningful vote' seems one option for a mechanism, but unsure if the time would be sufficient.
May would need to ask for a suspension of the Article 50 Clock, but (assuming that's forthcoming) there's a reasonable chance she'll be defenestrated if she tries it.
I wonder if she really would. If Tory MPs are staring straight at Clusterfuck Brexit + Party Chaos + Fiddling While Rome Burns, with strong potential to end up in a new election where they'd have to defend their jobs under these less-than-propitious circumstances, would 50%+1 really pull the trigger? I mean, the membership would be hopping mad, but the confidence vote is a secret ballot, they don't have to tell anyone they voted for her.
They would.
Theresa May is currently a Grace and Favour PM, at the grace and favour of the Tory Party. She lost them the majority, has made very heavy weather of Brexit (where she and her acolytes have meddled constantly) and has very, very few friends. They will not, under any crcumstances, countenance her leading them into the next General Election. She is working her notice. The only issue is her departure date.
I'm not talking about whether they'd let her stay on post-Brexit, I'm talking about whether they'd let her stay on long enough for this hypothetical Article 50 extension and referendum.
This would be staring down the barrel of a deadline after which lots of things would explode, so at that point she'd be running on
The correct analogy is Love It Or List It. The hen-pecked husband has been persuaded against his better judgement to list the perfectly adequate house because the stroppy mare of a wife can’t get on with the neighbours. Now she’s looking at properties that require a 400 miles daily commute for him that are half-derelict with no indoor toilet that he’s expected to renovate and where the locals are inbred mutants.
No deal and WTO is the default position under article 50, nothing has to be done for it take place, it just happens unless an alternative is agreed.
I can't see anything meeting the desires of the EU27 ever making it past this parliament, so barring a new parliament which the FTPA makes very hard, we're left with no deal.
The sooner serious preparation for it occurs the better.
The British government has been unable to successfully conclude negotiations with itself let alone the EU. Why is everyone assuming they'll be able to get the WTO deal done?
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told Reuters in Geneva on Monday that the agriculture question was still unresolved.
“There is no progress on agreeing the terms of Brexit (at the WTO),” she said.
That sounds alarmingly similar in tone to Barnier as he has oh so reasonably filleted the government’s efforts to negotiate any concessions for Britain.
So here's the thing, from the Leavers' perspective, No Deal is happening because the EU are being deliberately obstructive to punish them for leaving, and/or coerce them into taking a bad deal. The Leavers' solution is No-Deal + WTO.
But if that's the EU's game, why wouldn't they also be deliberately obstructive about the WTO?
If they are being deliberately obstructive to punish is, doesn't it make sense they'd do it at the WTO as well?
Yes, that's my point. So given that the EU seem to have at least some ability to bollocks up Britain's WTO transition, the proposed solution of No-Deal+WTO seems problematic.
There are plenty of WTO members not happy over how TRQs are divvied up. Even the WTO is not smooth sailing for HMS Brexit. An inteesting discussion here on the subject:
He also thinks she had a plan in motion from before article 50 was invoked, intending to end up calling a second referendum.
Apparently she is actually the greatest politician of our age.
Given the political pygmies we have, dhe may well be our greatest politician.
Frightening, isn't it?
We're doomed.
There was some discussion on here last night about the result of a re-run referendum - what if it still comes out "Leave"?
What if it does? That is where we are now. If it comes out "Remain" then possibly crisis over as the PM would have to withdraw A50 and hope to talk the EU round to saying OK (and which would probably cost us the UK rebate)
I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait? Do it now and if "Leave" is confirmed then get on with planning for WTO, ask for an extension and get stuck in.
Interesting article, as usual from David. Instinctively, though, I feel that it looks too hard at the trees instead of the wood. The wood is the overwhelming preference of all governments to avoid tremendous disruption. The trees are the practical difficulties. Like Alastair I think a way will be found to postpone disaster.
The most likely may be an agreement that at present there is no workable option so a new deadline is set to reach one, with some guidelines on roiughly what we are working towards, such as a "close customs arrangement" which would be effectively a customs nion. That'd be quite hard to vote down, because the alternative would be chaos. Sure, some EU leaders have said they don't want an extension if it just kicks the can down the road, but that's very untypical of the EU approach, which is ALWAYS to kick the can down the road if necessary.
I think no deal, defined as no aviation agreement, no transport/maritime agreement is very low. Less than 5%, why? It is very bad for both sides. Why would the Eastern European countries want all their nationals here to be unable to drive if they are using their national driving licenses. Why would the French/Belgians want the ferry companies with no cars and lorries on (Pas de Calais is an unemployment hotspot and Le Penn voting region), why would Varadkar choose no Irish lorries on the land bridge over electronic manifests at the Ire/NI border. The rest of the world would take a very dim view of the EU and the UK if that kind of outcome happened. The EU would have basically put up a sign saying "F business."
So the very minimal outcome in my view is a deal on the basics to keep things moving and trade happening. The issue is will a trade deal be done on top and what kind. This is dependent on can the government get a financial deal through parliament for the proposed deal. Will they vote for 40bill for a simple FTA?
There is no version of Brexit that meets the 5 tests set out.
Cancelling Brexit meets 4 of them
– Gain the acceptance of enough of the other 27 EU member states to pass the QMV threshold. – Gain the support of the House of Commons. – Gain the support of the European Parliament. – Not provoke a leadership challenge within her party, either directly from her MPs or as a consequence of cabinet / government resignations. – Retain the support of the DUP.
but it would need public approval.
The Tories are screwed as a party of Government whatever happens.
A Fuck business Brexit, complete with ration cards doesn't secure their future any better than rerunning the vote.
Voting again is the worst option, apart from ALL the rest.
Furthermore, it's the only way Theresa May can take back control of the politics. She's proven herself to be a gambler and she loves to use big set piece statements to change the narrative. Everything in her character and in the logic of the situation suggests this is what she will do.
She is however only an occasional gambler, rather than a habitual one, and her few previous binges in the casino left her with very empty pockets.
NI voted to Remain, therefore , voted for CU. Britain [ GB ] will be free ! [ There will be new trouble with Scotland but England and Wales did vote for Brexit ]
The DUP may not like it. But any legislation can be amended in no time.
I cannot see any other way out unless there is a second vote and Remain is voted back.
If Norther Ireland gets to stay in then what about Scotland? It was heavily remain and its politicians want to stay in the EU. They seem to like Brussels more than Westminster.
At what point does the PM call Nissan back in and say: “sorry lads, I tried but I can’t deliver what I promised you... do what you have to do”?
Do you know what she promised Nissan?
That’s rather the point, nobody does unless I missed it being reported. My assumption is that she promised to sort out so called frictionless trade for goods, at least for motor manufacturing, and that has been driving her attempts to square the circle ever since.
At some point she has to admit it hasn’t worked, unless there is a last minute stitch up for motor manufacturing. When she does, publically or privately, I would expect the Japanese Car manufacturers to start a long process of divestment from the U.K. much as their consumer products manufacturers have.
Hammond - would actually have been my pick last time. However, he didn't stand and there is no sign he wants the job. I think he's very happy where he is and wants to stay there. A good case could be made that he's the best Chancellor we've had since Howe, and May's foolish treatment of him is one of many signs that her judgement is flawed. Could easily be the kingmaker though.
Javid - has panache and flair, and clearly wants it. Whether he has the ability to make tough decisions and make them stick is a different question. He and Hammond however as a duumvirate might be a very formidable team. Both are incidentally former hardline Euroscpetics turned Remainers.
Hunt - has the talent, the energy, and the ability to make tough calls. Can see him struggling in a campaign against Corbyn though.
Gove - realistically if one of the Leave camp stands it will be him, but I don't think he will. He knows how unpopular he is and there's no way he would improve on fourth last time.
Fox - may be tempted, but wouldn't win.
If it is Javid, backed by Hammond, I think there is a chance, although not a certainty, that the Conservatives could call and win an election against Corbyn. They have brains, experience, knowledge and indeed backgrounds that he simply can't match. It would be the posh thickos of Islington against the working class whiz kids. Moreover, Corbyn has admitted his policies are unworkable but has come up with no new ones. He would be vulnerable.
But whether the membership would vote for it, I don't know. I think however with Hunt and Javid as the final two, they would go for Javid.
Hammond and Javid were Eurosceptic but still wanted Remain, it was only when euroscepticism boiled over to Brexitism that they came firmly for Remain.
I think that you overestimate the importance of intelligence to the electorate, as many intelligent people do. In reality communication skills and emotional intelligence count for more, and low cunning for even more still.
A Leaver will be in the final two and will win. Not BoJo or JRM, so Gove it is.
What a remarkable train of argument that begins by downplaying intelligence in favour of emotional intelliegence and communication skills, then ends by suggesting this points to Gove?!
"I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait?"
Indeed. But we had a referendum two years ago. This was a people's vote as far as I remember - it wasn't restricted to horses or armchairs. To urge a re-run on the hope of a small Remain majority is hardly democratic. As has been said many times before … where does that leave us? Best of three? Best of five?
Interesting article, as usual from David. Instinctively, though, I feel that it looks too hard at the trees instead of the wood. The wood is the overwhelming preference of all governments to avoid tremendous disruption. The trees are the practical difficulties. Like Alastair I think a way will be found to postpone disaster.
The most likely may be an agreement that at present there is no workable option so a new deadline is set to reach one, with some guidelines on roiughly what we are working towards, such as a "close customs arrangement" which would be effectively a customs nion. That'd be quite hard to vote down, because the alternative would be chaos. Sure, some EU leaders have said they don't want an extension if it just kicks the can down the road, but that's very untypical of the EU approach, which is ALWAYS to kick the can down the road if necessary.
You say David is looking too hard at the trees rather than the wood, but I feel you focus too much on what governments and the EU prefer or intend than what they may actually be able to do. Normally the two are the same, but some options simply may not be politically possible, and that may include both fudge and can kicking.
Personally I viewed the vote as a same time exchange and completion, it was one of the factors that lead me to remain even though there is so much wrong with the EU. I was quite surprised when people on here pointed out there probably wasn't much of a plan for leave. Turned out they were right, but I for one certainly viewed the vote as a final decision on the matter.
One of the salient factors here is that, whilst most Conservatives are Leavers and the most ardent Leavers are almost all Conservatives, the latter don't actually care about the Conservative Party all that much; it was always just a means to their end.
Or if they do care, they care about Brexit more? Which in fairness is reasonably principled.
I wasn't meaning to suggest that they weren't principled.
They will however put their own agenda before that of the Tory Party or the country. As we are already seeing, and have seen in the past.
Such scenarios usually work out better for the virus than for the host.
At what point does the PM call Nissan back in and say: “sorry lads, I tried but I can’t deliver what I promised you... do what you have to do”?
Do you know what she promised Nissan?
That’s rather the point, nobody does unless I missed it being reported. My assumption is that she promised to sort out so called frictionless trade for goods, at least for motor manufacturing, and that has been driving her attempts to square the circle ever since.
At some point she has to admit it hasn’t worked, unless there is a last minute stitch up for motor manufacturing. When she does, publically or privately, I would expect the Japanese Car manufacturers to start a long process of divestment from the U.K. much as their consumer products manufacturers have.
Edited for typos
I agree the Govt have said very little but I take base my opinion on what the Japanese Ambassador said on the steps of Downing Street. "The car companies must be profitable." So my take is that the Govt has promised in the event of non frictionless trade to compensate the car companies via some mechanism. Customs procedures, time lorries spent in customs is basically just a cost to business.
I'd like to say that I take offence at that. I'd like to, but I'm not actually bothered. As you're a member of the six-fingered Norfolk variety, I'd suggest you join us.
"I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait?"
Indeed. But we had a referendum two years ago. This was a people's vote as far as I remember - it wasn't restricted to horses or armchairs. To urge a re-run on the hope of a small Remain majority is hardly democratic. As has been said many times before … where does that leave us? Best of three? Best of five?
If Parliament can vote for new referendums then that is Parliament's right. We can have a referendum every week, if that's what Parliament wants.
Interesting article, as usual from David. Instinctively, though, I feel that it looks too hard at the trees instead of the wood. The wood is the overwhelming preference of all governments to avoid tremendous disruption. The trees are the practical difficulties. Like Alastair I think a way will be found to postpone disaster.
The most likely may be an agreement that at present there is no workable option so a new deadline is set to reach one, with some guidelines on roiughly what we are working towards, such as a "close customs arrangement" which would be effectively a customs nion. That'd be quite hard to vote down, because the alternative would be chaos. Sure, some EU leaders have said they don't want an extension if it just kicks the can down the road, but that's very untypical of the EU approach, which is ALWAYS to kick the can down the road if necessary.
You say David is looking too hard at the trees rather than the wood, but I feel you focus too much on what governments and the EU prefer or intend than what they may actually be able to do. Normally the two are the same, but some options simply may not be politically possible, and that may include both fudge and can kicking.
The analysis starts to break down if a majority of our voting representatives either actively desire the collapse of the government or actively desire an extreme outcome to Brexit more than they care about the government or the country.
Edit/ although it's true that there is usually a majority amongst politicians for buying more time rather than facing a crisis straight away
"I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait?"
Indeed. But we had a referendum two years ago. This was a people's vote as far as I remember - it wasn't restricted to horses or armchairs. To urge a re-run on the hope of a small Remain majority is hardly democratic. As has been said many times before … where does that leave us? Best of three? Best of five?
If Parliament can vote for new referendums then that is Parliament's right. We can have a referendum every week, if that's what Parliament wants.
I think the point is that while the risks and disruptions of a second referendum are decreasing, because things are already risky and disrupted, the idea it will settle matters and/or break the deadlock in the country remains problematic.
Interesting article, as usual from David. Instinctively, though, I feel that it looks too hard at the trees instead of the wood. The wood is the overwhelming preference of all governments to avoid tremendous disruption. The trees are the practical difficulties. Like Alastair I think a way will be found to postpone disaster.
The most likely may be an agreement that at present there is no workable option so a new deadline is set to reach one, with some guidelines on roiughly what we are working towards, such as a "close customs arrangement" which would be effectively a customs nion. That'd be quite hard to vote down, because the alternative would be chaos. Sure, some EU leaders have said they don't want an extension if it just kicks the can down the road, but that's very untypical of the EU approach, which is ALWAYS to kick the can down the road if necessary.
You say David is looking too hard at the trees rather than the wood, but I feel you focus too much on what governments and the EU prefer or intend than what they may actually be able to do. Normally the two are the same, but some options simply may not be politically possible, and that may include both fudge and can kicking.
The analysis starts to break down if a majority of our voting representatives either actively desire the collapse of the government or actively desire an extreme outcome to Brexit more than they care about the government or the country.
It doesn't require a majority. Just enough, given our polarised politics, to prevent other options.
NI voted to Remain, therefore , voted for CU. Britain [ GB ] will be free ! [ There will be new trouble with Scotland but England and Wales did vote for Brexit ]
The DUP may not like it. But any legislation can be amended in no time.
I cannot see any other way out unless there is a second vote and Remain is voted back.
If Norther Ireland gets to stay in then what about Scotland? It was heavily remain and its politicians want to stay in the EU. They seem to like Brussels more than Westminster.
As I said in my post there will be trouble with Scotland and if that is not given, this will be a perfect reason to go for Indy II.
Coming back to UK and [ GB ]
1. By default we will get WTO
or
2. We will get WTO with NI in a CU.
I know which choice Parliament will go for. The EU will agree with 2. The majority of NI will accept it including many DUP voters. The Leavers in GB will get what they want.
Of course, there is Art.50 extension which will be accepted by the EU. But note there will be Euro elections in 2019.
No deal and WTO is the default position under article 50, nothing has to be done for it take place, it just happens unless an alternative is agreed.
I can't see anything meeting the desires of the EU27 ever making it past this parliament, so barring a new parliament which the FTPA makes very hard, we're left with no deal.
The sooner serious preparation for it occurs the better.
The British government has been unable to successfully conclude negotiations with itself let alone the EU. Why is everyone assuming they'll be able to get the WTO deal done?
European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom told Reuters in Geneva on Monday that the agriculture question was still unresolved.
“There is no progress on agreeing the terms of Brexit (at the WTO),” she said.
That sounds alarmingly similar in tone to Barnier as he has oh so reasonably filleted the government’s efforts to negotiate any concessions for Britain.
So here's the thing, from the Leavers' perspective, No Deal is happening because the EU are being deliberately obstructive to punish them for leaving, and/or coerce them into taking a bad deal. The Leavers' solution is No-Deal + WTO.
But if that's the EU's game, why wouldn't they also be deliberately obstructive about the WTO?
If they are being deliberately obstructive to punish is, doesn't it make sense they'd do it at the WTO as well?
Yes, that's my point. So given that the EU seem to have at least some ability to bollocks up Britain's WTO transition, the proposed solution of No-Deal+WTO seems problematic.
There are plenty of WTO members not happy over how TRQs are divvied up. Even the WTO is not smooth sailing for HMS Brexit. An inteesting discussion here on the subject:
"I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait?"
Indeed. But we had a referendum two years ago. This was a people's vote as far as I remember - it wasn't restricted to horses or armchairs. To urge a re-run on the hope of a small Remain majority is hardly democratic. As has been said many times before … where does that leave us? Best of three? Best of five?
If Parliament can vote for new referendums then that is Parliament's right. We can have a referendum every week, if that's what Parliament wants.
I think the point is that while the risks and disruptions of a second referendum are decreasing, because things are already risky and disrupted, the idea it will settle matters and/or break the deadlock in the country remains problematic.
Only a decisive Remain vote can break the deadlock. Better than 55-45. Otherwise, we will be exactly in the yellow stuff as what we are heading for.
"I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait?"
Indeed. But we had a referendum two years ago. This was a people's vote as far as I remember - it wasn't restricted to horses or armchairs. To urge a re-run on the hope of a small Remain majority is hardly democratic. As has been said many times before … where does that leave us? Best of three? Best of five?
Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say I wanted it for Remain to win (although I would prefer that). I want it to break the current deadlock. If Leave wins, then so be it but there can be no further bickering and we need to start working in earnest for WTO with an A50 extension.
"I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait?"
Indeed. But we had a referendum two years ago. This was a people's vote as far as I remember - it wasn't restricted to horses or armchairs. To urge a re-run on the hope of a small Remain majority is hardly democratic. As has been said many times before … where does that leave us? Best of three? Best of five?
It would leave Britain staying in the EU until it elected a government that wanted to leave and put together an actual, practical plan for their preferred status (EEA, border in the Irish Sea, hard border in NI etc), and put *that* to a vote. (Although constitutionally they wouldn't even need a vote, they could just go ahead and carry out their plan.)
I don't think we'll see any governments keen to repeat Cameron's constitutional innovation of asking the voters to choose between the status quo and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Personally I viewed the vote as a same time exchange and completion, it was one of the factors that lead me to remain even though there is so much wrong with the EU. I was quite surprised when people on here pointed out there probably wasn't much of a plan for leave. Turned out they were right, but I for one certainly viewed the vote as a final decision on the matter.
The one reservation I had about voting leave is that I did worry that the politicians would go into meltdown. I am bit frustrated that none of the hardcore remainers haven't come up with proposals for tackling what people don't like about the EU (immigration etc.) whilst remaining in it. But I guess that's another Rubik's cube. Pro-EU Labour MPs couldn't possibly consider proposing reforms of our benefits system and public services (especially the NHS).
"I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait?"
Indeed. But we had a referendum two years ago. This was a people's vote as far as I remember - it wasn't restricted to horses or armchairs. To urge a re-run on the hope of a small Remain majority is hardly democratic. As has been said many times before … where does that leave us? Best of three? Best of five?
Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say I wanted it for Remain to win (although I would prefer that). I want it to break the current deadlock. If Leave wins, then so be it but there can be no further bickering and we need to start working in earnest for WTO with an A50 extension.
Best of three, best of five, etc, does not apply.
For you, perhaps. But while I think a second referendum might be the best option now in an attempt to break the political deadlock, those who would still continue for a best of three/five would still be there, and it is not necessarily even unreasonable given the first one would apparently not have counted.
I think the point is that while the risks and disruptions of a second referendum are decreasing, because things are already risky and disrupted, the idea it will settle matters and/or break the deadlock in the country remains problematic.
I want the deadlock in Parliament broken. The country gets its say in the referendum. There are only two outcomes.
a) Leave wins or increases its margin. WTO + A50 extension. b) Remain wins. Withdraw A50 letter and ignore the head-bangers.
"I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait?"
Indeed. But we had a referendum two years ago. This was a people's vote as far as I remember - it wasn't restricted to horses or armchairs. To urge a re-run on the hope of a small Remain majority is hardly democratic. As has been said many times before … where does that leave us? Best of three? Best of five?
Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say I wanted it for Remain to win (although I would prefer that). I want it to break the current deadlock. If Leave wins, then so be it but there can be no further bickering and we need to start working in earnest for WTO with an A50 extension.
Best of three, best of five, etc, does not apply.
For you, perhaps. But while I think a second referendum might be the best option now in an attempt to break the political deadlock, those who would still continue for a best of three/five would still be there, and it is not necessarily even unreasonable given the first one would apparently not have counted.
The last two years have hardly been business as usual so the argument that the first referendum didn't count doesn't stand up for me.
Comments
From an outsider, Javid/Hammond looks likely to be the most successful. Hammond because he looks safe but boring, and Javid because he annoys all the Corbynites by not being left-wing, as he should be. That may exacerbate their intemperate language - which can have a racist tone.
I think that you overestimate the importance of intelligence to the electorate, as many intelligent people do. In reality communication skills and emotional intelligence count for more, and low cunning for even more still.
A Leaver will be in the final two and will win. Not BoJo or JRM, so Gove it is.
"On March 30th in a No Deal situation, the many EU players will become simply non UK."
A big problem for newly-promoted Wolves AKA Portugal 2nd XI
The reason it is failing now is the Unicorns promised by the Brexiteers.
An honest agenda of decades of uncoupling (with the associated economic hits) is entirely technically achievable.
And after dinner speaking proficiency doesn’t really count as communication skills, either.
David Herdson's very own Kobyashi Maru moment.
We need a James T Kirk type for PM.
It's still possible if they work together, but it's awkward as hell and involves a lot of pain.
A combination of prevarication and capitulation by May, coupled with EU intransigence, has taken us to a more unpleasant political crossroads than was necessary.
But if that's the EU's game, why wouldn't they also be deliberately obstructive about the WTO?
Jezza has great campaigning skills and is a natural when it comes to meeting the public, it is internal party management such as failing to put the anti-semitism issue to bed, thst he falls down on.
May would need to ask for a suspension of the Article 50 Clock, but (assuming that's forthcoming) there's a reasonable chance she'll be defenestrated if she tries it.
Apparently she is actually the greatest politician of our age.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/44988042
May goes to commons offering choice hard, remain or referendum as a backstop.
A sequence of votes in Commons.
Hard fails.
Remain fails.
It then goes to a public vote.
Frightening, isn't it?
The underlying problem is that we used to live in a grand mansion years ago, but have not got used to our reduced means.
https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1022963199543529473?s=19
"But everybody is renting now, dontcha know? And think of the removals cost....the upheaval....for what?"
"We know what leave looks like."
We don't. All that has happened is that we've had the same opinions amplified, a reboot of Project Fear, and plenty of heat. We've learned that the EU moves slowly, if at all, and remains intransigent. No concession has been offered by the EU because it can't do if it wants to keep the project on track. However a sort of BINO might be available.
I'd say that was already pretty well known if we chose to look.
We, and the EU, continue to approach a crisis point. We either pretend to leave and continue on the road to one state in Europe. Or we leave, despite the temporary difficulties that may cause.
There's no certainty that the EU will remain on course because other countries are flexing their muscles. It may be many years before full statehood is achieved and it will remain vulnerable during that time. The current system of half-integration is unstable. That's why the EU's final destination is logical.
Alas, it's not to my taste.
I think that very few people are strongly attached to either party now, despite their big combined vote share.
Theresa May is currently a Grace and Favour PM, at the grace and favour of the Tory Party. She lost them the majority, has made very heavy weather of Brexit (where she and her acolytes have meddled constantly) and has very, very few friends. They will not, under any crcumstances, countenance her leading them into the next General Election. She is working her notice. The only issue is her departure date.
Meanwhile we're jealous of the new Audi in number 40 and curtain twitching saw the poodle our in number 2 do it's business on our lawn. Don't mention the new flats at the end of the road. Rumour has it they'll be a through route into the neighbouring estate. Not what we expected when we moved into the close in the 1970s.
Who suspected she planned to throw away a double digit lead, all as part of a cunning plan to keep us in the EU?
Truly a giant walks among us.
Except one which most of you may find strange. At the last minute, to achieve their glorious independence, the Right may let NI drift off. The argument will be taht in twenty years it will be a goner anyway.
I am not suggesting that NI will be out of the UK but NI will be in the customs union.
Lots of justifications will come forward:
NI voted to Remain, therefore , voted for CU.
Britain [ GB ] will be free ! [ There will be new trouble with Scotland but England and Wales did vote for Brexit ]
The DUP may not like it. But any legislation can be amended in no time.
I cannot see any other way out unless there is a second vote and Remain is voted back.
There's clearly a very different strand of opinion that UKIP was much better at embodying back in the days when it had enough members to run a proper conference and was starting to get an organisation together.
This would be staring down the barrel of a deadline after which lots of things would explode, so at that point she'd be running on
"Theresa May or the country burns".
(c) Bashar Assad, 2012-2018 All Rights Reserved
What if it does? That is where we are now. If it comes out "Remain" then possibly crisis over as the PM would have to withdraw A50 and hope to talk the EU round to saying OK (and which would probably cost us the UK rebate)
I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait? Do it now and if "Leave" is confirmed then get on with planning for WTO, ask for an extension and get stuck in.
The most likely may be an agreement that at present there is no workable option so a new deadline is set to reach one, with some guidelines on roiughly what we are working towards, such as a "close customs arrangement" which would be effectively a customs nion. That'd be quite hard to vote down, because the alternative would be chaos. Sure, some EU leaders have said they don't want an extension if it just kicks the can down the road, but that's very untypical of the EU approach, which is ALWAYS to kick the can down the road if necessary.
So the very minimal outcome in my view is a deal on the basics to keep things moving and trade happening. The issue is will a trade deal be done on top and what kind. This is dependent on can the government get a financial deal through parliament for the proposed deal. Will they vote for 40bill for a simple FTA?
At some point she has to admit it hasn’t worked, unless there is a last minute stitch up for motor manufacturing. When she does, publically or privately, I would expect the Japanese Car manufacturers to start a long process of divestment from the U.K. much as their consumer products manufacturers have.
Edited for typos
"I cannot see any other option that breaks the deadlock so why wait?"
Indeed. But we had a referendum two years ago. This was a people's vote as far as I remember - it wasn't restricted to horses or armchairs. To urge a re-run on the hope of a small Remain majority is hardly democratic. As has been said many times before … where does that leave us? Best of three? Best of five?
They will however put their own agenda before that of the Tory Party or the country. As we are already seeing, and have seen in the past.
Such scenarios usually work out better for the virus than for the host.
So my take is that the Govt has promised in the event of non frictionless trade to compensate the car companies via some mechanism. Customs procedures, time lorries spent in customs is basically just a cost to business.
"where the locals are inbred mutants."
I'd like to say that I take offence at that. I'd like to, but I'm not actually bothered. As you're a member of the six-fingered Norfolk variety, I'd suggest you join us.
Edit/ although it's true that there is usually a majority amongst politicians for buying more time rather than facing a crisis straight away
Coming back to UK and [ GB ]
1. By default we will get WTO
or
2. We will get WTO with NI in a CU.
I know which choice Parliament will go for. The EU will agree with 2. The majority of NI will accept it including many DUP voters. The Leavers in GB will get what they want.
Of course, there is Art.50 extension which will be accepted by the EU. But note there will be Euro elections in 2019.
Best of three, best of five, etc, does not apply.
I don't think we'll see any governments keen to repeat Cameron's constitutional innovation of asking the voters to choose between the status quo and ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Michael Fabricant, your moment has come.
a) Leave wins or increases its margin. WTO + A50 extension.
b) Remain wins. Withdraw A50 letter and ignore the head-bangers.
It has to be re-run on the same basis: 50% + 1
Looks like its all politics (or it is once this kicks off)..